[Protest Against USDA Contract Award for Label Machines]

B-226939,B-226939.2,B-226939.3,B-227252: Aug 31, 1987

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

Three firms protested a Department of Agriculture (USDA) contract award to another firm for label machines. The first protester contended that USDA improperly determined that its offer failed to comply with the solicitation's commercial product requirement. All three protesters contended that USDA improperly awarded the contract, since the: (1) awardee's response to an amendment was late; (2) awardee's proposal did not respond to a requirement for installation and training manuals; (3) test demonstration of the awardee's product showed that it was deficient; and (4) contracting officer was incompetent and biased. GAO held that: (1) USDA reasonably determined that the first protester's product did not meet requirements, since the protester did not show that its offered model was similar in design and construction to the required product; (2) USDA properly rejected the second protester's bid, since its product did not meet certain standards; and (3) since the second protester was not in line for award, it was not sufficiently interested to protest. GAO also held that: (1) USDA erroneously dated the awardee's timely response to the amendment; (2) the awardee's proposal did include the required manuals; (3) it would not question the USDA determination that the awardee's product complied with operational requirements, since USDA tested the product before award; and (4) the allegation that the contracting officer was biased and incompetent was merely speculative. Accordingly, the first protest was denied in part and dismissed in part, the second protest was dismissed, and the third protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.

Mar 22, 2018

Mar 20, 2018

Mar 19, 2018

  • Ampcus, Inc.
    We deny the protest.
  • AMAR Health IT, LLC
    We dismiss the protest because our Office does not have jurisdiction to entertain protests of task orders issued under civilian agency multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts that are valued at less than $10 million.
  • Centurum, Inc.--Costs
    We grant the request.

Mar 15, 2018

  • ORBIS Sibro, Inc.
    We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part.

Mar 14, 2018

Mar 13, 2018

  • Interoperability Clearinghouse
    We dismiss the protest because the protester, a not-for-profit entity, is not an interested party to challenge this sole-source award to an Alaska Native Corporation under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) program.

Looking for more? Browse all our products here